PC 03-06-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDE:'-J HILLS PLANNING COMMISSIO:'-J - MARCH 6, 2002 3 . Commissioner Zimmemlan asked if Ms. Schulke had spoken with her neighbors regarding this proposal. Ms, Schulke replied thcy had not received any negative feedback from their neighbors regarding their proposal. There were no comments against the proposal. Chair Sand closcd the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Commissioner Zimmenl1an stated he would be more comfortable replacing an existing deck, rather than encroaching onto the setback another two feet as this proposal was asking. Hc indicated he understood the desire to move around the deck, but he did not like the aesthetics ofthc angle look to the deck by bringing the comer out. He stated he would like to see a two-foot extension all of the way across, instead of having the angle, He indicated he did not see it made any difference if the two-loot was on tbe comer or all of the way across the deck. Commissioner Duchenes stated sbe believed this was a nominal request and she understood why applicant would want to add the corner to the deck. She believed this proposal was a good improvcment to this property. Commissioner Galatowitsch indicated thc plan did not substantially change the existing structure, and she also believed the proposal would improve the gencrallooks of the . home. She indicated she did not have a problem granting this variance. Chair Sand stated be did agrcc that this was a minimal request, and he believed it would improve the prope11y substantially. Hc stated when all orthc factors were weighed, this proposal was still keeping with the zoning code, He indicated he was inclined to approve thc rcq ucst. Chair Sand moved, seconded by Commissioner Duchenes, to approve Case #02-02, 3159 Shorewood Drive, Mindy Schulke, Setback Variance for a 33-foot front yard setback where a 37-foot setback is required in conformance with the design that was submittcd dated Fcbruary 5, 2002, subject to review by the building inspector, for the following reasons: 1. The circumstances for which the variance is requested are uniquc to the property. 2. Granting the variance would bc in keeping with the spirit and intent ofthe City's Zoning Code. 3. The hardship was not created by the property owner. 4_ Granting the variancc will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). .